Planning Committee 3 March 2004

Report of Head of Planning, Transportation & Regeneration

Author/Contact Officer: D. Bainbridge - Planning Officer Tel. 01604 838 913

Planning Application N/2003/1564 Erection of 4 no. houses with garages and new garage for no. 67 Mill Lane

Conservation Area Consent Application N/2004/7 Demolition of summerhouse At: Land north of 63 to 67 Mill Lane and south of 1 to 5 Fremeaux Terrace, Kingsthorpe.

Recommendation

That planning application N/2003/1564 be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. By reason of the number and the size of the dwellings, and the siting and layout within a restricted site area, which is constrained by existing trees, the proposed development would fail to provide adequate private amenity area and would constitute an overdevelopment of the site, to the detriment of residential and general amenities, contrary to policies E26, H6, H12 and H19 of the Northampton Local Plan.

2. By reason of the siting, layout and close proximity to adjacent residential properties, the proposed access would constitute a contrived feature, harmful to residential amenity, through the introduction of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, noise and general disturbance, contrary to policies H15, H19 and T10 of the Northampton Local Plan.

3. The existing Sycamore tree within the site, is protected by a Tree Preservation Order, which by reason of the siting, layout and close proximity to the Sycamore tree, the proposed access would prejudice its long term health and vitality, to the detriment of the general and visual amenities of the Kingsthorpe Conservation Area, contrary to policies E11, E12 and H6 of the Northampton Local Plan.

4. The proposed development over provides on-site parking and would discourage the use of alternative means of transport, contrary to the aims and objectives of PPG13: Transport and contrary to policy T10 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan, policies H6 and T17 of the Northampton Local Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking.

5. The proposed development fails to provide an ecological study of the site and any remediation measures, where necessary, to the potential detriment of nature conservation, contrary to policy GS5 of the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan and policies E17 and E18 of the Northampton Local Plan. That conservation area consent application N/2004/7 be **REFUSED** for the following reason:

6. The proposal fails to justify a requirement for the demolition of the summerhouse, fails to demonstrate an acceptable replacement for the loss of the summerhouse and fails to demonstrate how the demolition will preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the Conservation Area, to the detriment of the visual amenity of the Kingsthorpe Conservation Area, contrary to policies E22 and E26 of the Northampton Local Plan and PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

7. **Description and Planning History**

1.1 The application site is situated between 63 to 67 Mill Lane and 1 to 5 Fremeaux Terrace. The site has been used as a garden area, with grassed over former lawn tennis courts, a summerhouse, and a filled-in former swimming pool. There is a Red Oak and Sycamore tree within the site. The site slopes downwards from Mill Lane to Fremeaux Terrace, with a difference of some 2 metres across the site. There is currently no public or vehicular access to the site. The site (excluding the proposed access off Mill Lane) falls within the Kingsthorpe Conservation Area, there is Tree Preservation Order (TPO) placed on the Sycamore and the Red Oak is protected by virtue of the Conservation Area status.

1.2 The current planning application (N/2003/1564) seeks consent to erect 4 no dwellinghouses and garages. The existing garage at 67 Mill Lane would be demolished to create the vehicular and pedestrian access to the site. Plot 1 adjacent to the east side boundaries of 69 Mill Lane and 23A Green End would have two bedrooms with a single attached garage. A new garage for 67 Mill Lane is proposed along the east boundary with 69 Mill Lane. Plots 2 and 3 would both be 4 bedroom units with integral single garages and plot 4 is also proposed with 4 bedrooms with a new double detached garage adjacent to a boundary with 39 Mill Lane. At the time of writing this report, local residents and other relevant parties have been notified and consulted on revisions to the proposal. In summary, these revisions concern the access, building positions, ground levels and revisions to plots 1 and 4 in particular.

1.3 The conservation area consent application (N/2004/7) seeks to demolish the existing summerhouse, which is located adjacent to a Red Oak tree to the north of the site boundary with 63 Mill Lane. The tree is shown as being retained and would be located within the front garden areas of plots 3 and 4.

1.4 There is no relevant planning history.

2. **Development Plan Policies**

2.1 Section 54A of the Town and Country Act 1990, as introduced by Section 26 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, requires an application for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

2.2 The current Development Plan comprises the Northamptonshire County Structure Plan (1996-2016) and the Northampton Local Plan.

2.3 The following policies of the Structure Plan are considered relevant: GS5, H6 and T10.

2.4 The following policies of the Local Plan are considered relevant: E11, E12, E17, E18, E20, E22, E26, E40, H6, H12, H15, H19, T9, T10, T17 and L3

3. **Planning Guidance**

3.1 Planning Policy Guidance 1: General Policy and Principles Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing Planning Policy Guidance 9: Nature Conservation Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment

3.2 Northampton Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance: Parking Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Out Crime in Northamptonshire 4. **Representations on Planning Application**

4.1. **Environment Agency** – no objection.

4.2. **Kinsthorpe Conservation Area Advisory Committee** – object to size of buildings on rising ground, overlooking, loss of privacy, traffic increase, loss of Sycamore tree and damage to roots of Oak tree and loss of open space.

4.3. **Northants Police** – the site is a candidate for Secured By Design and a lockable gate is required at the side of plots 1 and 4.

4.4. **Access Officer** – advice on mobility and access provided.

4.5. **Environmental Health** – no objections to general principle, providing ground contamination study and remediation measures are submitted.

4.6. **English Nature** – concerns about implications for protected species, such as bats, nesting birds and badgers. Species survey required to assess status of any protected species, with mitigation measures where necessary. Other advice provided.

4.7. **The Wildlife Trust** – the trust has no specific information about species records or habitat data for the application area. There is a complex of existing, already designated wildlife sites lying just a few hundred metres away to the west (map provided). Some of the mobile species of animals may well be moving between these wildlife areas and the residential gardens and open space areas associated with this part of Kingsthorpe. From residents letters it would appear to be anecdotal evidence of certain species present in, or using, the area affected, such as badgers. Therefore, a degree of caution needs to be exercised. A full ecological survey investigation, results and mitigations is required.

4.8. **Sally Keeble MP** – my constituents strongly oppose the application due to the poor quality building design, impact on wildlife, trees and birds in the conservation area and traffic and access problems. The number of letters sent in are a clear sign of the strength of opposition in the local community to the development.

4.9. **Residents Representations**

**55 Mill Lane (2 letters)** – most vehemently against proposal because of increase traffic and parking, noise and inconvenience.

**On behalf of 63 Mill Lane (3 letters)** – adverse visual effects, design, overdevelopment, blight, access is completely inadequate, buildings too high, loss of views and privacy, harm to trees, increased openness and vulnerability to crime and harm to road safety. Intention to re-plant trees along proposed access, the existing dip in the access will make it difficult for motorists, and create a dangerous blind crossing for pedestrians. Security and privacy of numbers 65, 67 and 69 Mill Lane will be severely compromised. The sight, noise and smells of additional cars will require screening. Height of buildings too high, bungalows more appropriate. Detrimental affect to Conservation Area. Sycamore tree which will be removed appears to be in full health. Profound wildlife issues such as displacement of foxes, moles, badgers, squirrels and an owl.

**65 Mill Lane** – site is landlocked in a Conservation Area, demolish of garage at 67 Mill Lane will ruin symmetry of cul-de-sac, extra traffic, loss of privacy and feeling of insecurity.

**73 Mill Lane (2 letters)** – surprised at contemplation of development as in Conservation Area and already had inflicted upon us two monstrosities in front of Kingsmoor House. In sufficient space for access, additional traffic intolerable, proposal is poorly conceived and unsound planning wise. Concerns expressed about crime. If granted the scheme will be thoroughly bad planning. Intrusion into Conservation Area. Proposed development is undesirable, unnecessary and inconsiderate. 3 Fremeaux Terrace (2 letters) – oppose proposal, site is considerably higher resulting in loss of privacy, overshadowing, loss of outlook and ‘overbearing’. Potential ground conditions problems, threat to stability of Oak tree, other mature trees and variety of wildlife, including an owl. Proposal will destroy character of the area. Access to landlocked site will be difficult for emergency vehicles and be detrimental to current residents. The height of the proposed houses and ground levels will mean they will tower over Fremeaux Terrace. Loss of privacy and also design of these house as a terrace of four in one solid block will make our position somewhat similar to looking at the Berlin Wall. This is not conducive to the preservation of the character of the Conservation Area.

59 Mill Lane – difficult access, particularly at peak times, inconvenience and distress to local residents. Extremely difficult for emergency vehicles.

41 Mill Lane – the windows and door situated in the east elevation of plot 4 will overlook my private garden which is unacceptable to me.

71 Mill Lane – strong objections, no consideration to cul-de-sac appearance, destroy environment, has consideration been given to access for emergency services, refuse collection? More use of access and back gardens will be less secure.

23A Green End (2 letters) – my property is adjacent to the site and must object strongly. Landlocked site in Conservation Area, surrounded by houses. The size, length and height of the proposed single building will have a detrimental visual impression, restrict views, natural light and be an oppressive and overshadowing presence. Outlook from kitchen window will face the proposal, deprived of my privacy and natural light. My lounge will be overlooked from proposed bedrooms, my garden will lose its privacy and seclusion. Proposal fragrantly challenges the concepts of a Conservation Area. Limited access off Mill Lane.

69 Mill Lane (2 letters) – strongly against proposed development, demolition of garage at no. 67 Mill Lane will badly affect appearance of my property and that of the cul-de-sac, trees to be planted along the access within 65 Mill Lane will lead to a dangerous blind spot, the Conservation Area is home to badgers, moles, squirrels, an owl and wood pigeons. Removal of the healthy Sycamore tree is difficult to justify. A Greenfield that supports all of the above wildlife will be lost. Height of plot 1 will be oppressive. Plot 1 will be some 2.5 metres from 23A Green End, looking directly into ground floor bedroom. Due to the extreme height of the proposed properties the sun will appear to rise 2 hours later to the rear of Green End and Fremeaux Terrace. Proposal will open up gardens to crime, security will be compromised. This planned development contravenes guidance in Local Plan, and is in Conservation Area. Should this application be accepted it would forever be a blight on a beautiful area and certainly not an improvement.

A petition from 45 residents in objection to the proposal was submitted under covering letter from 69 Mill Lane.

78 Harborough Road North – request speaking at committee meeting. Issue with proximity to 23A Green End. Great deal of local anger and resentment about the proposed development. Proposed destruction of the Conservation Area, removal of healthy and protected trees, introduction of large area of hardstanding for cars. Site has not previously developed and is not brownfield.

146 Boughton Green Road – object most strongly to house which are totally out of character with the village, will overshadow existing buildings completely. Do we need another carbuncle? Harm to Conservation Area and concerns about water table.

79 Mill Lane – formal protest and request application is rejected. Great disturbance to area, traffic problems, access problems and cul-de-sac has elderly residents. 21 Green End – concerns about impact on Conservation Area, slope of land and height of the houses are such that we will be overlooked, drastically affect sunlight and contravenes current regulations.

25A Green End – height of these house will rob the area of trees, sky, sunshine and the feeling of space. If this land must be built upon surely bungalows would be more appropriate.

5. **Representations on Conservation Area Consent Application**

5.1. **English Nature** – no objection provided that if bats are discovered work halts and English Nature is consulted further and that no works take place between March to July inclusive, except upon prior approval.

5.2. **Residents Representations**

69 Mill Lane – concerns as summerhouse is home to bats and badgers.

71 Mill Lane – strong objections, by sanctioning the demolition and pool in-fill we would be agreeing to the preparation of the site for development. Site is landlocked, where will access come from?

39 Mill Lane – regret the works as this will rob the area of much wildlife and access is not suitable for normal traffic.

3 Fremeaux Terrace – oppose works as may set precedent of consent for planning proposal. Summerhouse is a traditional building, totally authentic to its period and should be maintained and preserved. It stands on land within a Conservation Area and merits preservation. The summerhouse is designed and constructed around an ancient Oak tree, which could be damaged if the summerhouse were demolished.

73 Mill Lane – the summerhouse appears to be late 1920’s or 30’s vintage and I wonder whether it might have been part of the Thornton Hall estate. They are not built anymore and few survive. As part of the Conservation Area the summerhouse should be repaired and retained instead of converting it to so much firewood.

6. **Considerations on Planning Application**

6.1 **Background**

The application site area is recognised as a primarily residential area in the Local Plan. The site to the north of the existing rear boundaries of 63 to 67 Mill Lane is a designated Conservation Area. A Sycamore tree, which is protected by Tree Preservation Notice No. 152, stands to the north of the rear boundary of 67 Mill Lane. A Red Chestnut tree is entwined in a former summerhouse to the north of the boundary with 63 Mill Lane. A former swimming pool, now substantially filled-in is situated between the Red Oak and summerhouse and the boundaries with 39 and 63 Mill Lane.

6.2 **Principle of Land-use**

The presence of the summerhouse, former tennis courts, filled-in swimming pool and the open aspect of the site to 4 and 5 Fremeaux Terrace would suggest that the site, which does not have separate direct access, has been a residential garden area. Under planning guidance, the application site can claim to be ‘previously-developed land’ where it was occupied by a permanent structure and associated fixed surface infrastructure, for example the summerhouse, tennis courts and swimming pool. Conversely, land previously developed but which due to the process of time has become part of the natural surroundings can be excluded from the definition. However, the summerhouse, although entwined with the Red Oak tree has walls, windows and a roof. The outline and shape of the tennis courts are obvious and the site area forms part of a residential garden area, hence it is considered that the application site is more clearly defined as previously developed land. Given this definition and the Local Plan recognition that the site is a primarily residential area, there are no objections to the principle of residential development, subject to other considerations.

6.3 Access and Parking

The vehicular and pedestrian access will require the demolition of the garage currently attached to 67 Mill Lane. The proposed access provides a carriageway width of 4.5 metres and a walkway on the west side of the access 1 metre wide, for the first 14 metres back from the highway, with visibility splays on either side. 65 Mill Lane has a garage attached to the west side of the house, with a distance of some 4 metres to the east side of the access. The side of 67 Mill Lane, as altered, will be within 1 metre of the west side of the walkway, enclosed by a 1.8 metre high brick wall. To avoid the recently protected Sycamore, the access road is proposed to curve through the current rear garden of 67 Mill Lane, within some 2 metres of the east boundary of 69 Mill Lane. This contrived layout, will adversely affect the garden areas of both 67 and 69 Mill Lane. In total 15 parking spaces (including garages) are proposed for 5 dwellings, which exceeds the maximum site average of 1.5 per dwelling, a standard acknowledged within current government guidance and the Council’s Parking SPG.

6.4 Building Design

The design of the 4 new dwellings has taken influence from the terrace properties at Freemeaux Terrace, using steep roof pitches, prominent roof gables, similar window and door details, chimney stacks and more traditional materials. Therefore, the buildings have been designed to be in-keeping with the established character of buildings elsewhere in the Conservation Area. The heights from ground levels to the roof ridges vary between some 7.7 metres for plot 1 and some 8.4 metres for plots 2 to 4.

6.5 Layout and Density

The terraced dwellings would be sited in a continuous block running across the site (west to east) and hence would be almost parallel to the properties to the south on Mill Lane and properties to the north on Freemeaux Terrace and Green End. Parking, access to the garages and front gardens would be situated to the front (south) of the dwellings. This will result in restricted rear garden depths. Notwithstanding the relatively small gardens, the siting of the proposed dwellings exceeds the minimum spacing distances laid down in the Local Plan. However, some local residents have expressed concerns about the proximity of the dwellings, given the relatively steep incline from north to south and west to east combined with the heights of the proposed buildings. Whilst the siting and size of the proposed dwellings would be visible from existing houses and would restrict views in some circumstances, the proposal would not harm the outlook from existing habitable room windows, due to the adequate spacing between buildings. At some 0.22 hectares (0.55 acre), the proposal development does not meet the net minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare. However, given the characteristics of the site and the constraints imposed by existing trees, it is considered that this target is not achievable, nor practical on this site.

6.6 Trees and Ecology

The applicants submitted a report on the Sycamore and Red Chestnut trees, as part of the planning application. The report recommends that Sycamore is felled. Both trees have been assessed by the Council’s Tree Officer and Arboricultural Officer. In summary, there is a disagreement with the applicant’s submitted tree report. Officers consider the loss of, or harm, to the health of the Sycamore, in order to accommodate the access to the site would have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of the local environment. Hence, a TPO has been placed on the Sycamore. As a consequence, the access has been amended to trail around the tree but Officers consider this fails to provide an adequate protection area. The Red Oak is afforded protection by virtue of the Conservation Area designation. Anecdotal evidence from local residents suggests the presence of protected species, and both English Nature and the local Wildlife Trust have recommended that a full ecological survey and report with remediation measures be produced. At the time of writing this report these details have not been received.

6.7 Residential Amenity

The representations received from local residents demonstrate the strength of objections to the proposal. Some of the objections and concerns rest upon the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of local residents and in particular the amenity of occupiers who adjoin the site. The combination of a relatively steep but currently open site, situated on higher ground to properties to the north (Fremeaux Terrace and Green End) with the siting, size and design of the proposed development has led to many concerns about the potential for crime, the loss of privacy and outlook, overshadowing and the creation of an overbearing and oppressive environment. Clearly, the relative location of some properties to the proposed development are closer than others, to the extent that the most robust objections are considered to be held by the occupiers of 65 to 69 Mill Lane, 1 to 5 Fremeaux Terrace and 23A Green End. As stated, the siting of the proposed dwellings exceeds minimum spacing distances in the Local Plan, but this is largely due to existing properties having larger than average gardens. On that basis the wall to wall distances between the proposed dwellings to those on Mill Lane and Fremeaux Terrace exceeds 21 metres. The other concerns about amenity centre on the access off Mill Lane, which will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the existing and future occupiers of 67 and 69 Mill Lane in particular, and the amenity for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings, and outlook from the front elevations being severely restricted due to the close relationship to the canopy of the trees.

7. Conservation Area Consent Considerations

7.1 The demolition of the proposed summerhouse may be considered necessary to enable any possible future development on the site. However, in the absence of a valid planning consent for new development, the demolition of the summerhouse cannot be justified. The application does not provide adequate details on what may replace the summerhouse and also fails to demonstrate the reclamation of materials, which may be capable of salvage for reuse. Therefore, the application fails to preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the Kingsthorpe Conservation Area.

8. Sustainability Implications

8.1 As set out in the report.

9. Background Papers

Files: N/2003/1564 and N/2004/7

Tree Preservation Order No. 152